It's pretty annoying when people don't read the links, thought they comment in strong fashion on them. I've been on and off here since 1999 and have always provided links and snippets (pull quotes) that I find to be the most relevant.

It isn't quote material that I object to, on the contrary I prefer some context with a link. it's just a matter of formatting. The way you do it makes it difficult to see the context switches. All it takes to use the forum quote feature is 15 extra characters, or one button push if you use the full editor. This has a similar benefit to block quotes, which most style guides recommend for multi-line quotes.

Got it. I'll bold or italicize any future pull quotes. I'd rather not use the quote tag because it's used quite a bit to relay to a quote made by other forum members.

He ran a Ponzi scheme. His company was found guilty, as well as his partners. The court wanted the fraudulently acquired assets. He refused and was held in contempt. He finally admitted guilt and plead to a felony, and was punished. He could have gotten out of the contempt by turning over the fuckign money he and his co-conspirators stole.

The guy is a fucking criminal. I don't give a shit about his self-serving woe is me tale. He read a statement admitting what he plead to. Cry me a river.

He ran no such thing, again read the facts associated in the case. You want to have an opinion based on ignorance? Have at it and it's safe for me to then conclude the rest of your opinions are based on ignorance as well.

What facts? Did he or did he not plead guilty to a felony? Yes or no? If yes, he is a criminal.. a felon.

Your answer can be found in the articles I linked to which contains all the pertinent facts. Go play duck, duck, goose with someone else, child. Daddy has more important things to do.

There are a number of factors behind the widening canyon of economic inequality, but the primary driver is financialization. Financialization has given those with capital and access to financier expertise ways to skim great wealth from the system without creating any value whatsoever. The hidden toxin in financialization is the resulting concentration of wealth can buy concentrations of political power. Financialization is thus self-perpetuating: once the skimming operations generate billions of dollars in profit, it only takes a relatively small piece of these profits to buy/influence the political class. Once the politicos are in your pocket, the regulators and judiciary fall into line or are marginalized by new statutes or gutted budgets. Financialization is the disease eating away the heart of the economy and what's left of democracy.

Housing is up but still below peak levels and mortgages are not easier to get yet.

They've blown another housing bubble, but it isn't quite as large as the last one. I don't even the many greater fools we have in this country would believe that "this time is different" only five years later. It'll take a good twenty years to get as big a bubble again.

If one is admonished in public, then expect the response to be made in public. That is the way adults do business. I am not a child.

To shelter the discussion behind closed doors where the debate is one against many, is the definition of cowardice.

I never back down from a debate, especially if done in public. Do you?

From our friends at Merriam-Webster:

vul·garadjective \ˈvəl-gər\Definition of VULGAR1a : generally used, applied, or acceptedb : understood in or having the ordinary sense <they reject the vulgar conception of miracle — W. R. Inge>2: vernacular <the vulgar name of a plant>3a : of or relating to the common people : plebeianb : generally current : public <the vulgar opinion of that time>c : of the usual, typical, or ordinary kind4a : lacking in cultivation, perception, or taste : coarseb : morally crude, undeveloped, or unregenerate : grossc : ostentatious or excessive in expenditure or display : pretentious5a : offensive in language : earthyb : lewdly or profanely indecent

ob·sceneadjective \äb-ˈsēn, əb-\Definition of OBSCENE1: disgusting to the senses : repulsive2a : abhorrent to morality or virtue; specifically : designed to incite to lust or depravityb : containing or being language regarded as taboo in polite usage <obscene lyrics>c : repulsive by reason of crass disregard of moral or ethical principles <an obscene misuse of power>d : so excessive as to be offensive <obscene wealth>

A search of this forum for "shit" returned 1189 pages.A search of this forum for "fuck" returned 5880 pagesA search of this forum for "cock" returned 226 pagesA search of this forum for "pussy' returned 205 pages.

My behavior now is no different than it has been sense 1999 when I first joined.

The Soapbox was born from the flames of the Battlefront during the days of the Microsoft/Windows anti-trust suit.

How does Ars define the Battlefront? "BattlefrontOS talk can sometimes get a little hot, but flame-fighters are standing by."

An acknowledgement of the heated and personal discussion. Want to water the discussion down to the lowest common denominator (which papadage obvious is), then be my guest.

eXceLon, I know you never cared for me and you've been waiting a long time for your shot. Well you got it as lame as it was. Enjoy your little domain. If you have the courage to addresss me directly, my e-mail addy can be found in my profile. Noone to shelter you there and no collective skirts to hide behind.

Bye folks, no doubt management doesn't have the courage of it's convictions, off to more mature conversations. My feeling won't be hurt by a ban permanent or otherwise. The discussion across the world wide web is endless. Toodles.

If one is admonished in public, then expect the response to be made in public.

Official moderation notice.

Wrong. Doing so is against the Posting Guidelines you agreed to when you signed up for an account here. In future, please read things you agree to more closely. This is another Official Warning for arguing moderation in thread. A temp ban has been requested.

Housing is up but still below peak levels and mortgages are not easier to get yet.

They've blown another housing bubble, but it isn't quite as large as the last one. I don't even the many greater fools we have in this country would believe that "this time is different" only five years later. It'll take a good twenty years to get as big a bubble again.

Thanks to these big-money investors as well as a shortage of supply, single-family home prices in Vegas have increased an average of 32.8 percent from a year ago, according to the Greater Las Vegas Association of Realtors.

The housing market is so tight that Realtors are calling people to try to get them to sell their homes. Agents are always trying to find homes to sell, but right now in Vegas, it's taken on a new fervor.

"Right now, on average, an average listing we have we can say there's no less than 15 offers on a property that we have," says Noah Herrera, vice president of the Greater Las Vegas Association of Realtors.

A normal, healthy housing supply in Las Vegas has enough homes to meet a six-month demand, Herrera says. Right now, Vegas has barely enough for five weeks. One reason, he says, is an influx of big-money investors — Wall Street and hedge funds — who are buying up properties in bulk.

So an contrived bubble that seems more like passing tulip bulbs around and pretending they are worth more in an area with tons of foreclosed properties still in inventory is a sign of a healthy real estate recovery, let alone a boom?

If you try to follow the hot money as it creates the next bubble, you get caught holding the bag. I have no trust in a market in which the predominant buyers of single family homes are investors.

So an contrived bubble that seems more like passing tulip bulbs around and pretending they are worth more in an area with tons of foreclosed properties still in inventory is a sign of a healthy real estate recovery, let alone a boom?

If you try to follow the hot money as it creates the next bubble, you get caught holding the bag. I have no trust in a market in which the predominant buyers of single family homes are investors.

The other question being "What do the investors know that the rest of us don't?" Is it just easy access to capital and they think another gold rush of flipping is coming up? Are they boosting REIT holdings? Are they opening rental firms for long-term investment payoff? Is someone buying up land to sell to (insert foreign investors here)? What?

They are hoping for a run up and flip opportunity. Renting out single family homes is not profitable at the prices they are paying. Renting is profitable in more dense areas, but the never-ending sprawl of Vegas provides and endless stream of rental communities.

It also helps to know that the Las Vegas suburb is relatively cheap for investing - a house in Las Vegas would be as little as a third of the price of a similar house in Los Angeles, so speculators get more bang for their buck, in theory - not just in the number of assets they're holding, but in the potential profit margins for those assets; the difference between the current market value and the potential peak is much greater (as a percentage) for the Las Vegas houses than similar Los Angeles houses.

Housing is up but still below peak levels and mortgages are not easier to get yet.

They've blown another housing bubble, but it isn't quite as large as the last one. I don't even the many greater fools we have in this country would believe that "this time is different" only five years later. It'll take a good twenty years to get as big a bubble again.

First, the widely followed Shanghai Composite Index fell almost 6 percent—to its lowest level in more than four years—and then, in the last 90 minutes of trading, it skyrocketed to close near its opening, down only 0.2 percent for the day.

The reason for the last-minute recovery? Government-related entities went on a buying binge, indicating that central government technocrats were supporting the market. This is at least the second time they did this in the last two weeks.

When this thing crashes, along with the construction bubble, that will be the most predictable crisis ever. These "government-related entities" could buy stocks gradually throughout the day if they wanted to keep up appearances. They clearly don't care about perceptions.

Then there are the ghost cities... fully built cities where nobody lives. Short of forcibly resettling people from the countryside, it's not clear to me how to fix those. Nobody wants to be among the first people to move into a city where nobody else lives. So you need a critical mass to come in at once. I don't know to what extent major banks are invested there, or whether all the money comes directly from the government. But if private assets are invested there, that's going to require a considerable bailout.

Then there are the ghost cities... fully built cities where nobody lives. Short of forcibly resettling people from the countryside, it's not clear to me how to fix those. Nobody wants to be among the first people to move into a city where nobody else lives.

It seems like the Chinese government could do this if they created lots of jobs in those cities. Perhaps by incentivizing companies to set up there. If you can get several thousand people to move to the city then it could spark faster growth.

Then there are the ghost cities... fully built cities where nobody lives. Short of forcibly resettling people from the countryside, it's not clear to me how to fix those. Nobody wants to be among the first people to move into a city where nobody else lives.

It seems like the Chinese government could do this if they created lots of jobs in those cities. Perhaps by incentivizing companies to set up there. If you can get several thousand people to move to the city then it could spark faster growth.

I heard that China is still very exports dependent. They've been talking for years about stimulating domestic demand. So they've moved a couple of hundred million to a Westernized standard of living so you hear about this crush of Chinese tourists going to Europe and so on. Or you hear about long lines at the Shanghai Apple Store when the new products launch.

Yet, domestic consumption must not yet rival US or European consumption levels? So they overbuilt and can't employ more people to be able to live in these cities because tepid growth in the US and recessionary conditions on the EU have dried up exports?

It does seem like China is in a precarious place in terms of propping up their economy. On the other hand, they have the same major advantage that all autocratic governments have: they can take drastic action very quickly if they need to. The US and especially the EU are hobbled by all sorts of political considerations, but the Chinese government can change their fiscal policies overnight. I'm sure there are some different factions in there, but it's a much better situation than the Western economies.

The entire currency-manipulation thing is exactly the same story--they did something blatant to help their own economy at the expense of everyone else, and no one was able to stop them because the democratic countries were paralyzed by different interests.

Of course, the downside of that same situation is that while you can act quickly, there's no guarantee that you act correctly. Who knows whether anyone in charge has a good grasp of the economics involved.

Then there are the ghost cities... fully built cities where nobody lives. Short of forcibly resettling people from the countryside, it's not clear to me how to fix those. Nobody wants to be among the first people to move into a city where nobody else lives.

It seems like the Chinese government could do this if they created lots of jobs in those cities. Perhaps by incentivizing companies to set up there. If you can get several thousand people to move to the city then it could spark faster growth.

I'm not sure how they would create tens of thousands of jobs in an instant -- especially jobs that paid well enough so workers could afford living in such a city. They'd also need the government to set up things like grocery stores: nobody can live there without those, but no store is going to open if there aren't any customers around. Even if they directed companies to set up factories there (I don't think they'd do a lot of incentivizing*), they'd not have a local labor force. I can't imagine the logistics of getting a critical mass going.

In general, I wouldn't trust a single data point out of China. If the CPP wants economic growth to be 7%, it'll exceed 7% no matter the realities on the ground. But at some point, nobody can even pretend to believe it anymore. And if economic troubles lead to social unrest, it isn't going to end well for a whole lot of people.

* One of the more memorable experiences I had from a trip to China was meeting with executives at a local factory. Right next to the director's office was the office for the representative of the communist party. Of course he sat in on all talks, with his own translator.

Then there are the ghost cities... fully built cities where nobody lives. Short of forcibly resettling people from the countryside, it's not clear to me how to fix those. Nobody wants to be among the first people to move into a city where nobody else lives.

It seems like the Chinese government could do this if they created lots of jobs in those cities. Perhaps by incentivizing companies to set up there. If you can get several thousand people to move to the city then it could spark faster growth.

I'm not sure how they would create tens of thousands of jobs in an instant -- especially jobs that paid well enough so workers could afford living in such a city. They'd also need the government to set up things like grocery stores: nobody can live there without those, but no store is going to open if there aren't any customers around.

Obviously it doesn't happen in an instant, but the Chinese government can use the same types of fiscal stimulus that any fiat-currency government has access to (even if many of them choose to ignore that fact). They don't have to be incredibly useful jobs, but they would provide the seed of demand that would attract a service industry, and then you have the necessary population to support larger enterprises. All of this requires that there's a bunch of unemployed people around--people probably won't leave their current jobs to move to a ghost town, but they'll move to get a job if they don't have one.

I don't understand why it would be expensive to live in an empty city. Surely the cost of living is quite low, assuming you can find someone to buy food from? There's nothing inherently expensive about cities, in fact they're quite efficient. Cost of living is usually high because demand is usually high--if the demand isn't high, the cost is low. There are lots of cities in the US that aren't very expensive to live in, because people aren't trying to move in.

and wrote:

Even if they directed companies to set up factories there (I don't think they'd do a lot of incentivizing*), they'd not have a local labor force. I can't imagine the logistics of getting a critical mass going.

In terms of incentives, I was thinking along the lines of "we're happy for you to build factories in China, you just have to build them here" or something along those lines. Or they could promise some subsidized infrastructure or something, the same way any government incentivizes a business to move.

The whole point is that you can do all of this quite easily if you don't ask for anyone's opinion about the whole thing. I'm not endorsing the system of government, but it does make economic policy much easier.

I don't understand why it would be expensive to live in an empty city. Surely the cost of living is quite low, assuming you can find someone to buy food from? There's nothing inherently expensive about cities, in fact they're quite efficient. Cost of living is usually high because demand is usually high--if the demand isn't high, the cost is low. There are lots of cities in the US that aren't very expensive to live in, because people aren't trying to move in.

The typical Chinese rural dweller has a plot of land where they can grow their own food and live a practically subsistence level existence. In a city apartment, you need to pay for electricity, water, cooking gas, food, and transport --- you have to pay for everything because it doesn't naturally exist, and living in a city costs substantially more than $1 a day.

...who said they wouldn't have jobs? The whole point would be to create some jobs in the city via government stimulus, thus attracting workers, thus creating more jobs to provide services to the workers.

Ok, so China is revising DOWN their growth numbers, and their local banks are drowning in debt. Even if they get bailed out, how are they going to conjure up millions of new jobs? It's not happening. Those empty housing estates are likely to stay empty for many more years.

NPR: Real Estate Sizzles Again In Las Vegas"Right now, on average, an average listing we have we can say there's no less than 15 offers on a property that we have," says Noah Herrera, vice president of the Greater Las Vegas Association of Realtors.

A normal, healthy housing supply in Las Vegas has enough homes to meet a six-month demand, Herrera says. Right now, Vegas has barely enough for five weeks. One reason, he says, is an influx of big-money investors — Wall Street and hedge funds — who are buying up properties in bulk.

One is reminded that emphasizing volatility, and the consequent need for action, is in the best interest of real estate brokers. Regard all statements with appropriate skepticism and await the arrival of sourced data of high quality.

Even if they get bailed out, how are they going to conjure up millions of new jobs?

China doesn't enjoy the same level of global confidence as the US, but they do have control of their own currency. They can create jobs by just...paying people to do stuff. They can create some yuan and give them to some people. Bam, jobs created. It seems like this concept is really hard to grasp for a lot of people.

Like I said, it doesn't need to be productive stuff. They could hire ten thousand painters to cover the whole city in murals, or ten thousand gardeners to fill it with flower gardens. And then a bunch of street-food vendors to handle all the tourists.

If you want an example of essentially-pointless job creation by the Chinese government, go watch the opening ceremonies of the 2008 Olympics. They hired 14,000 people simply to perform in that ceremony. It was purely a media spectacle, but those jobs still existed for however long it took to rehearse and perform.